DVDActive uses cookies to remember your actions, such as your answer in the poll. Cookies are
also used by third-parties for statistics, social media and advertising. By using this website, it is
assumed that you agree to this.

Sony has now revealed the artwork for this new Richard Kelly directed movie

Further Details:
Sony Pictures Home Entertainment has announced Southland Tales which stars Dwayne Johnson, Sarah Michelle Gellar, Mandy Moore, and Justin Timberlake. This Richard Kelly directed film about a future dystopia will be available to own from the 18th March, and should retail at around $24.96. The film itself will be presented in anamorphic widescreen, along with an English Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround track. Extras will include a USIDent TV: Surveilling the Southland featurette, and a This Is The Way The World Ends Animated Short. We've attached our first look at the official package artwork below:

Advertisements

Comments

Reply

Message

Enter the message here then press submit. The username, password and message are required. Please make the message constructive, you are fully responsible for the legality of anything you contribute. Terms & conditions apply.

Tricky Dicky wrote: Richard Kelly pulled off exactly what he wanted to. He made the film HE wanted to make. Which in this day and age is not only to be commended but aspired to.

Just because a filmmaker makes a film exactly the way he/she wants to does not automatically make the film a good one. Just ask Uwe Boll.

Quote: It's a great film and exactly what Kelly wanted to make in the style he wanted to make it. Just because some people don't like it, doesn't mean it's bad.

Actually, because MANY people didnt like it, does in fact mean that it is bad... in their opinions. Who's to say a film is bad, and who's to say a film is good? Well, the majority. If you beg to differ, than more power to you. But your opinion is just as irrelevant as the next, when trying to define the greatness of a film objectively.

Quote: Opinions are like arseholes, every one has one. Some are prettier than others, but at the end of the day, they all splatter out the same old s**t.

For the record, Inland Empire didn't do that incredibly well with critics either. Some loved it and some hated it just like this movie. If you look at the reputable critics (cream of the crop) on RT, 41% liked ST, and 52% liked Inland Empire. That isn't a very big difference. Especially when you consider that Lynch has proven himself time and time again in the past, and people have come to expect a certain waywardness in his films. I think Kelly just tried way too hard to surpass himself and he doesn't have the maturity as a director to pull it off yet.

I must say that I was one that loved Donnie Darko, but this was a complete piece of c**p. I laughed my way through most of this movie. It tried way too hard to have a point and it failed miserably. I can see why the people at Cannes booed and walked out on it. I wish that I could reclaim the time wasted sitting in the theater. The highlight of this worthless movie was when the final credits started rolling because then I at least knew it was over. I honestly think that people claiming to like this movie only like it because they think that it makes them look cool to like something different and "avant garde". Trust me, this pile of dog poo is not worth your time.

ive been waiting far too long for this movie. fyi, if you intend to watch this, you NEED to read the graphic novel. the graphic novel contains chapters 1-3, the movie contains chapters 4-6. dont want any confusion.

fair play to anyone that correctly understood Donnie Darko, I didn't even come close!

That all depends on whether or not you believe the overly pretentious git who told you that you "understood it wrong." But dont worry, there are far better films out there to ponder and examine from opening to closing credits.

The problem with Donnie Darko is that it uses abstractions to move the story, yet wants you to go along a set path, wants you to think a specific thought. How is that abstract?

Tricky Dicky wrote: They are both on par for me. The 2 best films of the year.

FWNW I think if you watched ST again you would enjoy and pick up a lot of stuff you missed first time around and it would really change your opinion of this film. Most of the great review came from people who had seen the Cannes cut and then the recut. Asde from the changes, most of them admitted the film just simply needed to be watched again to fill in most of the gaps in plot etc. Still if you aren't willing to do that, you won't fully experience all that ST has on offer.

Well, there's a possiblity that i might have a better understanding of where the film is coming from if i see it again, but i really wish to never go through that again. I am all for films that take repeated viewings for the "full" experience, but there was absolutely nothing in the film that made me WANT to ever see it again. Maybe there IS something i am missing, maybe there is a whole other movie or "experience" that i have yet to endure, but i just dont care enough. If a film requires unwanted repeated viewings in order to fully "get" or "experience" it to the fullest, its not worth my time.

FWNW I think if you watched ST again you would enjoy and pick up a lot of stuff you missed first time around and it would really change your opinion of this film. Most of the great review came from people who had seen the Cannes cut and then the recut. Asde from the changes, most of them admitted the film just simply needed to be watched again to fill in most of the gaps in plot etc. Still if you aren't willing to do that, you won't fully experience all that ST has on offer.

James Tully wrote: FWNW wrote: James Tully wrote: I think if it had David Lynch's name at the front of it instead of Kelly's then the critics would have been praising it as film of the year.

I doubt it, 2 reasons:

1) David Lynch's films arent always universally acclaimed.

2) David Lynch would never produce c**p like this (he has produced c**p in the past, though not as runny and reeking as this). I cannot see Southland Tales ever being shat from Lynch's arse, its just not his style.

You say this about a year in which Lynch released his 'Emperors New Clothes' flick Inland Empire and critics were falling over themselves to suck him off.

Inland Empire was better than Southland Tales. That's all I have to go off of.

FWNW wrote: James Tully wrote: I think if it had David Lynch's name at the front of it instead of Kelly's then the critics would have been praising it as film of the year.

I doubt it, 2 reasons:

1) David Lynch's films arent always universally acclaimed.

2) David Lynch would never produce c**p like this (he has produced c**p in the past, though not as runny and reeking as this). I cannot see Southland Tales ever being shat from Lynch's arse, its just not his style.

You say this about a year in which Lynch released his 'Emperors New Clothes' flick Inland Empire and critics were falling over themselves to suck him off.

Simon Abrams wrote: It wasn't terrible at all. It's just that most people that see it dismiss it because what its trying to do isn't to their tastes.

Yes it was. Don't kid anyone. It was an awful movie that made little to no sense. I like all types of movies and I am open to all kinds of things. I really wanted to like this movie but ultimately was disappointed.

i hope all the stuff that was cut out is put on some kind of release, im holding my opinion till i see the deleted stuff, i liked the film alot, but i know im gonna like it alot more, when the additional footage is put in

Definately my fave film of last year. Just like the critics you'll either love it, hate it or just be utterly gobsmacked by it. Great performances allround once you get into the style of acting on offer, especially from Sean Scott Williams and Mandy Moore (boy did I never think that phrase would ever leave my mouth). A hystericly funny, weird and wonderful take on all things wrong in America today. It's actually very easy to follow if you watch it carefully and despite what everyone says, everything is there for a reason and has a meaning in the film if you watch it properly.

Once again Kelly falls just short of what he is aiming for, but at least he has the balls to aim for something different even if he seems to very narrowly miss his target once again. This was the only film besides Inland Empire this year to push the boundaries of filmaking and I for one hope he continues in his madness.

And to answer your question, this film is far more relevent than Darko.

In a years time this will be the film everyone is still talking about.....

I still want to see this film, despite the negativity surrounding it, because I thought that the plot sounded interesting, and recently getting seriously into Buffy, Gellar makes me want to see it even more.

I dl'd the torrent because it never came to Cincinnati and, from what I saw, it was amazing. I'd been following for a few years and had read the GNs a few time, so I knew what was going on. It was a lot more linear than people give it credit for being. I can't wait to get this DVD - I'll certainly be the first in line. Can't wait to really experience the film on my 56" widescreen.

James Tully wrote: I think if it had David Lynch's name at the front of it instead of Kelly's then the critics would have been praising it as film of the year.

I doubt it, 2 reasons:

1) David Lynch's films arent always universally acclaimed.

2) David Lynch would never produce c**p like this (he has produced c**p in the past, though not as runny and reeking as this). I cannot see Southland Tales ever being shat from Lynch's arse, its just not his style.

When i first watched Donnie Darko (when I was 18), i loved it. But as time went on, and the more i thought about it, the less "genius" it seemed. fast forward 6 years later, after seeing southland tales, i have reason to believe that richard kelly is truely a hack. the guy is obviously trying too hard to be f^cked up. Lynch has earned the right to be f^cked up, and if you've seen his films, and understand his thinking process (i suggest you read his book), you'll know very well how he earned the right to be f**ked up. i see kelly as the film student who thinks to himself "hey, i could probably do that too!" ...no.

The mess overload was definitely a love or hate decision for people. Richard Kelly obviously needed to go bigger than Donnie Darko and it was a mess, but it was bigger (not better) and I loved it overall. I'll argue with anyone that this is one of the best movies of 2007.

I kinda liked the movie. I liked the first 2/3rds of the movie but then it turned into a huge mess. But I like these types of out there movies that don't make much sense. It's not a movie for everyone and I'm pretty sure 90% of the population will hate it.

Managed to catch this before it's untimely exit from theaters. When coupled with the graphic novels, the whole experience was pretty damn good, and much MUCH easier to follow. I kinda wish Sony would put out a 2-disc special edition though, that included an animated version of the graphic novels, and the Cannes version along with the theatrical cut.

It wasn't terrible at all. It's just that most people that see it dismiss it because what its trying to do isn't to their tastes. For a disorienting trip full of hints that can't be fully explained without additional info (ahem 20 minutes of footage missing because Kelly was told to shorten it or else he wouldn't get the money he wanted for sfx plus the graphic novels that serve as the first parts of the story and are very helpful), dirty jokes and a great tribute to Phil Dick in general, Southland Tales was a very good film.

For everyone not inclined to go so far over the top, Southland Tales will suck hard.

I was hoping we'd get info on the director's cut but I guess not yet. Rats.

I actually really liked this. I was one of the 17 people who saw it in the cinema in the UK. It was original, funny, completely ridiculous and utterly pretentious. I think if it had David Lynch's name at the front of it instead of Kelly's then the critics would have been praising it as film of the year.

Even now bits of it seem like a dream.... Surely I cant have ACTUALLY seen some of those things. It was a vey bizarre film and not to everyone's taste, but I personally cant wait to see it again.

Harker Studios wrote: If I am correct, it got horrible reviews at Sundance(2 Sundance's ago) so Kelly went out and shot new material and re-edited the whole thing. After all of that it still was considered a disaster by critics. It was in selected theatres for a bit then it was pulled.

*feel free to correct me if I am off on the facts*

You're almost there. It was at Cannes that the film got totally trashed, and since it's re-edit, the reviews have actually been largely mixed. The general consensus seems to be that this was Kelly's "magnificent failure:" an amazing film to behold that still has a $#!+load of problems. I'm in that boat. It's hard to recommend this movie to anyone, but man is it a trip.

If I am correct, it got horrible reviews at Sundance(2 Sundance's ago) so Kelly went out and shot new material and re-edited the whole thing. After all of that it still was considered a disaster by critics. It was in selected theatres for a bit then it was pulled.

I love Donnie Darko and have since it came out so I was really looking forward to this. Ive seen Southland Tales three times now, and I still don't know what to make of it. I still can't say if I like it or not.

.......I think this will do fairly well on DVD because of all the negitivity that surrounds it. Ppl are going to be interested in forming their own opinions(the hardcore movie fans that have been reading about it for the past few years) & since The Rock is going to be on the cover, the others who have no clue about it will prob rent it.